GRAPH QUERY LANGUAGE API FOR DATA QUERY AND MANIPULATION SERVICES IN SIXTH GENERATION SERVICE-BASED ARCHITECTURES

Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Detailed Action Claims 1-20 are pending in this Office Action. Claims 1, 16 and 17 are in independent form. Claims 1, 11, 13, 16-17 are amended. No claims are cancelled. The claim objection to claim 11 is withdrawn based on applicant’s amendment. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is withdrawn from claim 16 based on applicant’s amendment. The 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph rejection is withdrawn from claim 13 based on applicant’s amendment. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments filed in the amendment filed 7/28/26, have been fully considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. The reasons set forth below. REMARKS Applicant has presented amendments the specifying some network call functions into the independent claims. Applicant’s invention as claimed: Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claims 1-6, 8-11, 13, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by U.S. Patent No. 11657088 by Acheson et al in view of US Patent Publication No 20180115595 by Krishnan et al. Regarding claim 1. Acheson teaches: A wireless communications network service-based architecture for providing data query and manipulation services (Acheson: col. 2, lines 35-67; Figure 2 and 7), the wireless communications network service-based architecture comprising processing circuitry for a network function coupled to storage for storing information associated with the data query and manipulation services (Acheson: col. 22, lines 54- col. 23, line 23), the processing circuitry configured to: detect a request from a service consumer, received at a GraphQL interface of the network function, to query or manipulate data (Acheson: col. 14, lines 41-55; col. 16, lines 25-39). provide, using the GraphQL interface, a response to the request (Acheson: col. 14, lines 41-55; col. 16, lines 25-39). Acheson fails to explicitly subscriptions with network calls. However, in analogous art, the Krishnan reference teaches a web application that wherein a request comprises a subscription type to subscribe to a notification of a data change and a callback Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) (Krishnan: pages 2, 3, para 17-19, 32); upon detecting the change to subscribed data, send a notification request to the callback URI (Krishnan: pages 2, 3, para 17-19, 32) in order to take allow users to use event triggered actions on data (Krishnan: page 1-2, para 14-15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filed date to include the webhook network calls in Krishnan into the data service of Archeson in order to take allow users to use event triggered actions on data (Krishnan: page 1-2, para 14-15). 2. The wireless communications network service-based architecture of claim 1, wherein the network function is paired with a database that supports GraphQL query language (Acheson: col. 16, lines 25-39; col. 17, lines 35-54). 3. The wireless communications network service-based architecture of claim 2, wherein the service consumer supports GraphQL client functionality (Acheson: col. 17, lines 35-54). 4. The wireless communications network service-based architecture of claim 1, wherein the data query and manipulation services of the network function support the GraphQL interface (Acheson: col. 14, lines 41-55; col. 16, lines 25-39). 5. The wireless communications network service-based architecture of claim 4, wherein other data query and manipulation services of the network function not supporting data query or manipulation use a RESTful interface of the network function (Acheson: col. 8, lines 34-62). 6. The wireless communications network service-based architecture of claim 1, wherein a data service function (DSF) of the wireless communications network service-based architecture is configured to provide network mediation functionality for data service access, and comprises GraphQL interfaces and RESTful interfaces (Acheson: col. 14, lines 41-55; col. 16, lines 25-39; col. 8, lines 34-62). 8. The wireless communications network service-based architecture of claim 6, wherein the DSF interacts with different application programming interface schema-based data sources comprising the network function (Acheson: col. 6, lines 25-42; col. 13, lines 45-67), at least one additional network function of the wireless communications network service-based architecture, and at least one external data source, and wherein the response uses a GraphQL format (Acheson: col. 14, lines 41-55; col. 16, lines 25-39;). 9. The wireless communications network service-based architecture of claim 1, wherein a protocol stack is used for the GraphQL interface (Acheson: col. 14, lines 41-55; col. 16, lines 25-39;). 10. The wireless communications network service-based architecture of claim 1, wherein the GraphQL interface uses JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) as a serialization format (Acheson: col. 13, lines 45-67). 11. The wireless communications network service-based architecture of claim 1, wherein the GraphQL interface uses a same HyperText Transfer Protocol (HTTP) or transport protocol as a Fifth Generation (5G) communications service-based architecture (Acheson: col. 8, lines 34-63). Claims 16, 17-20 are rejected as being substantially similar to claims 1-4 above. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 11657088 by Acheson et al in view of US Patent Publication No 20180115595 by Krishnan et al (Krishnan ‘595) in further view of 20230138971 by Krishnan et al (Krishnan ‘971). Regarding claim 7, The modified Acheson reference teaches: 7. The wireless communications network service-based architecture of claim 6, with a gateway for accessing many database structures including using GraphQL, with a single-entry point (Krishnan ‘595: Figure 3). The modified Acheson reference fails to explicitly teach single GraphQL schema. However, in analogous art, the Krishnan’971 reference teaches: wherein the DSF is a single-entry endpoint for accessing all data sources based on consolidating all schemas into a single GraphQL schema (Krishnan’971: page 6, paras 50-53; Figure 3) in order improve performance and query communications between many different IoT type devices (Krishnan’971: page 1, para 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to combine the GraphQL based super gateway with the distributed schema and database structure of modified Acheson in order improve performance and query communications between many different IoT type devices (Krishnan: page 1, para 3). Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 11657088 by Acheson et al in view of US Patent Publication No 20180115595 by Krishnan et al (Krishnan ‘595) in further view of 20230164117 by Wu et al. Regarding claim 12, The modified Acheson reference teaches: 12. The wireless communications network service-based architecture of claim 1. The modified Acheson reference is silent on port numbers. The Wu reference teaches wherein a firewall gateway that uses different ports to route traffic to different applications and network devices (Wu: page 1, para 4). The rules and services associated with port numbers include a GraphQL interface is different than a RESTful interface of the network function (Wu: page 5, para 36) in order to map network traffic to the appropriate processes and network sockets while protecting network assets (Wu: page 1, para 4; page 2, para 19) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to combine the port-based network management of Wu with the distributed schema and database structure of modified Acheson in order to map network traffic to the appropriate processes and network sockets while protecting network assets (Wu: page 1, para 4; page 2, para 19). Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 11657088 by Acheson et al in view of US Patent Publication No 20180115595 by Krishnan et al (Krishnan ‘595) in further view of 20210173888 by Flack et al. Regarding claim 12, The modified Acheson reference teaches: 13. The wireless communications network service-based architecture of claim 1 where security is expressed and used in the GraphQL interfaces. However, the modified Acheson fails to explicitily teach TLS or QUIC security protocols. However, in analogous art, the Flack reference teaches GraphQL and using a Transport Layer Security (TLS) or Quick UDP Internet Connections (QUIC) security protocol (Flack: page 2, para 17-18) in order to delivery content across CDNs and improve the delivery of data (Flack: page 1, para 2-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to combine security protocols of Flack with the distributed schema and database structure of modified Acheson in order to delivery content across CDNs and improve the delivery of data (Flack: page 1, para 2-3). Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 11657088 by Acheson et al in view of US Patent Publication No 20180115595 by Krishnan et al (Krishnan ‘595) in further view of 20240078148 by Sigal et al. Regarding claim 14, The Acheson reference teaches: 14. The wireless communications network service-based architecture of claim 1, Modified Acheson teaches a distributed database query system that employs syntax and query languages (Acheson: col. 11, lines 21-48). Modified Acheson fails to teach a different syntax for GraphQL and RESTful interfaces. However, in analogous art, the Sigal reference teaches a translation engine that uses a same syntax as interface definition language (IDL), and wherein the same syntax as the IDL is different than a syntax used by a RESTful interface of the network function (Sigal: page 1, para 10-12) in order to facilitate remote procedure calls between clients and servers over a network (Sigal: page 1, para 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to combine the IDL interfaces utilizing different syntax support of Sigal with the distributed schema and database structure of modified Acheson in order to facilitate remote procedure calls between clients and servers over a network (Sigal: page 1, para 4). Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 11657088 by Acheson et al in view of US Patent Publication No 20180115595 by Krishnan et al (Krishnan ‘595) in further view of 20240236063 by Chen et al. Regarding claim 15, The modified Acheson reference teaches: 15. The wireless communications network service-based architecture of claim 1, wherein API’s are used with structured queries like URLs (a form of URI) (Acheson: col. 6, lines 25-42; col. 13, lines 45-67; col 23, lines 44-65). Modified Acheson fails to teach the explicit format of a URI call. However, in analogous art, the Chen reference teaches a GraphQL interface uses a uniform resource identifier (URI) with a structure of application programming interface (API) root, API name, and GraphQL (Chen: pages 6-7, para 54) in order to enable clients to access resources within a platform (Chen: page 1, para 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to combine the URI structure of an API call of Chen with the distributed schema and database structure of modified Acheson in order to enable clients to access resources within a platform (Chen: page 1, para 1). Prior Art The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: U.S. Patent Publication No 20240381231 by Zhuo. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN R BRUCKART whose telephone number is (571)272-3982. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH: 7-6p. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. BENJAMIN R. BRUCKART Supervisory Patent Examiner Art Unit 2424 /BENJAMIN R BRUCKART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2424